Looks like one of Topper and Strangelove's brethren let loose the hounds on a couple unsuspecting fireman, killing them both and injuring a few others with the same make and calibre rifle as the one used by Lanza. The carnage, THE CARNAGE!. MAKE IT STOP! continues and continues and continues. What I don't get, this dude here spent 17 years in jail for a previous murder, how the fuck did this nutbar get a hold of such killing machines? I will tell you what, it's Toppers and Strangeloves love for lax gun control laws all in the name of the RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. Anyhow, the slaying of children and good samaritan firemen continues. Story - http://news.yahoo.com/man-killed-2-fire ... 07219.html

"I just want to say one word to you. Just one word. Are you listening? - Plastics." - The Graduate

RoyalDude wrote:Looks like one of Topper and Strangelove's brethren let loose the hounds on a couple unsuspecting fireman, killing them both and injuring a few others with the same make and calibre rifle as the one used by Lanza. The carnage, THE CARNAGE!. MAKE IT STOP! continues and continues and continues. What I don't get, this dude here spent 17 years in jail for a previous murder, how the fuck did this nutbar get a hold of such killing machines? I will tell you what, it's Toppers and Strangeloves love for lax gun control laws all in the name of the RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. Anyhow, the slaying of children and good samaritan firemen continues. Story - http://news.yahoo.com/man-killed-2-fire ... 07219.html

What part of "criminals don't obey laws, that's why they call them criminals" don't you understand? gun control laws only restrict responsible gun owners and innocent civilians, nutbars and freaky people have the black market that Always flourishes during prohibitions (Al Capone remember him?)

I watched a drug bust do down right next to my office last summe. The London Met police were armed to the teeth and resembled the SAS in the take down, they clearly were expecting an armed response and were right to expect so.

Having an unarmed population does nothing to prevent the criminal class from being armed like a private army.

And before you say it, no the bad guys do not buy there assault weapons at Guns R Us

RoyalDude wrote:Looks like one of Topper and Strangelove's brethren let loose the hounds on a couple unsuspecting fireman, killing them both and injuring a few others with the same make and calibre rifle as the one used by Lanza. The carnage, THE CARNAGE!. MAKE IT STOP! continues and continues and continues. What I don't get, this dude here spent 17 years in jail for a previous murder, how the fuck did this nutbar get a hold of such killing machines? I will tell you what, it's Toppers and Strangeloves love for lax gun control laws all in the name of the RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. Anyhow, the slaying of children and good samaritan firemen continues. Story - http://news.yahoo.com/man-killed-2-fire ... 07219.html

What part of "criminals don't obey laws, that's why they call them criminals" don't you understand? gun control laws only restrict responsible gun owners and innocent civilians, nutbars and freaky people have the black market that Always flourishes during prohibitions (Al Capone remember him?)

I watched a drug bust do down right next to my office last summe. The London Met police were armed to the teeth and resembled the SAS in the take down, they clearly were expecting an armed response and were right to expect so.

Having an unarmed population does nothing to prevent the criminal class from being armed like a private army.

And before you say it, no the bad guys do not buy there assault weapons at Guns R Us

Did you even read anything about the Newtown shooting?!What criminal class? It was a disturbed kid with a gun nut mother.Exactly the kind of thing stricter gun laws could prevent.

What exactly is wrong with that? Maybe then the next time some "responsible" gun owner and innocent civilian has a kid that wants to ventilate a local elementary school he'll have to do more than go rooting around in mommy's closet to get what he needs.

Making it harder to kill people is a good thing, even if a given change doesn't fix everything in and of itself.

, nutbars and freaky people have the black market that Always flourishes during prohibitions (Al Capone remember him?)

Funny you bring up the prohibition, most studies show that alcohol consumption fell (although certainly not to zero) during that time. I wonder how many lives would be saved by a comparable (30%) drop in gun ownership.. especially if that drop was comprised of the deadliest weapons or the weapons owned by the most menacing demographic or the least responsibly kept weapons?

I watched a drug bust do down right next to my office last summe. The London Met police were armed to the teeth and resembled the SAS in the take down, they clearly were expecting an armed response and were right to expect so.

Cool beans.

Having an unarmed population does nothing to prevent the criminal class from being armed like a private army.

Well if the "criminal class" was solely responsible for gun deaths in the United States, or if illegally acquired firearms were the sole cause of gun deaths, you might have a leg to stand on.

The Washington Post looked at 500+ deaths of police officers between 2000 and 2010 and legally acquired guns were the leading cause - 107 of the 341 murder weapons they had been able to track. Another 46 were legally purchased weapons obtained from their rightful owner. Another 77 were stolen (presumably many of these were originally legally obtained as well). So you're looking at a random sample of deaths and of the ones in which the murder weapon could be traced probably the majority goes back to a legal purchase.

If you take a look at a slightly more biased source, the "Violence Policy Center" looked at 59 'high profile' shootings between 1980 and 2001 and found that in 62% of handgun shootings 71% of long gun shootings the murder weapons were legally obtained. They looked at school shootings between 1997 and 2001 and found that in eight of ten the weapons were obtained from family members or friends, and in one of the two remaining cases the kid had previously been given a pistol by his father, he used it to kill both his parents and two classmates. In 14 workplace shootings since 1986 11 were committed with legally acquired weapons.

And you're telling me that restricting the type of weapons sold, or regulating who can legally own guns, or regulating how they can be stored.. none of that is going to cut down on the number of gun deaths in the US? You can talk about fucking Al Capone all you want but Adam Lanza got his guns from his mother's closet.

The fact is that there are "the bad guys" out there just like on tv, illegally acquiring guns for the purpose committing crimes and so on. There are also thousands of idiots out there who, in a moment or two of anger or panic or just stupidity, end someone's life because it was as easy as going into their closet or night stand or glove box or because they didn't have their safety on or.. blah blah blah.

Per wrote:Did you even read anything about the Newtown shooting?!What criminal class? It was a disturbed kid with a gun nut mother.Exactly the kind of thing stricter gun laws could prevent.

Yeah gun control "might" have limited the carnage in this one case you might be right...but just as likely a determined nut job could have obtained the tools he needed whether guns were banned or not.

The UK is a society where guns are not readily available, yet with a bit of shopping around I could get a gun with my crack or smack purchase even here too...

The thing is, tragedy like Sandy Hook is not a good enough reason to go running around slapping bans left and right. Virtually every cause has a cacophony of righteous zealots who can point to tragedy and if we listen to them all, freedom will be something we might read about in a book.

In the USA, Gun ownership is a right, and concerned citizens should never give up a right, its a slippery slope and totalitarianism is not that far removed from democracy.

People that scoff at the idea that even the US government could quickly turn into a modern nazi state...

ukcanuck wrote:The UK is a society where guns are not readily available, yet with a bit of shopping around I could get a gun with my crack or smack purchase even here too...

The thing is, tragedy like Sandy Hook is not a good enough reason to go running around slapping bans left and right. Virtually every cause has a cacophony of righteous zealots who can point to tragedy and if we listen to them all, freedom will be something we might read about in a book.

In the USA, Gun ownership is a right, and concerned citizens should never give up a right, its a slippery slope and totalitarianism is not that far removed from democracy.

People that scoff at the idea that even the US government could quickly turn into a modern nazi state...

Delusion is the name of the ferry that crosses denial ..

So.... help me out here, you're saying that the UK is a totalitarian country?

And the fact that homicide levels are just a third of what they are in the USA, and that people on average live two years longer are probably not of interest either?

Per wrote:So.... help me out here, you're saying that the UK is a totalitarian country?

And the fact that homicide levels are just a third of what they are in the USA, and that people on average live two years longer are probably not of interest either?

What I am saying is that the existence of the free man with inherent inalienable rights and freedoms is a relatively new thing.

In the US gun ownership is included in those rights and they should fight hard to keep that right, because the removal of even one right no matter how illogical that right might seem will only lead to the removal of others.

Human society has exited for at least 10,000 years, give or take, during that time freedom and rights have been a rare and intermittent thing...put simply rights are hard won and should not be cavalierly thrown aside.

As for the UK, yeah,sometimes it does feel like a totalitarian state, however, maybe people live longer here because we have national health care and look after our sick better??

UK, do you think that the right to own guns should include these high-powered semi-automatic assault rifles which can only be used in practical terms in shooting-ranges ? If so, do you think that the sacrifice of children and firefighters is worth that right?

okcanuck wrote:UK, do you think that the right to own guns should include these high-powered semi-automatic assault rifles which can only be used in practical terms in shooting-ranges ? If so, do you think that the sacrifice of children and firefighters is worth that right?

I think all rights should be like the right to free speech, just because I have the right to say what I want, does not mean I have the right to spread hatred.

I never said that we all should be walking around armed to the teeth. There ought to be responsibility attached to freedom, but ham handed "guns are bad, lets ban them" is not a reasonable answer and attacks rights and freedoms.

dbr wrote:Hey this is some super sound reasoning. Why not just stop having laws, since it doesn't seem to stop criminals from breaking them?

That's a slight exaggeration don't you think? How do you go from the sound logic that restricting legal weapons to prevent illegal ones being used in crimes won't work to well let's have no laws then?

What exactly is wrong with that?

Oh I don't know, what's wrong with stripping rights guaranteed in the constitution? Perhaps freedom of speech will be next?

Maybe then the next time some "responsible" gun owner and innocent civilian has a kid that wants to ventilate a local elementary school he'll have to do more than go rooting around in mommy's closet to get what he needs.

Does leaving firearms around for children to harm themselves and others sound responsible to you? It sure doesn't to me. obviously, there needs to be responsibility attached to every right.

Making it harder to kill people is a good thing, even if a given change doesn't fix everything in and of itself.

only if the solution doesn't create more problems than it tries to solve, like starting or continuing a watering down of what it means to be free.

Funny you bring up the prohibition, most studies show that alcohol consumption fell (although certainly not to zero) during that time.

Lets argue about the validity of "studies" of acts done in secrecy...It was against the law to consume alcohol, where did the data collectors get their stats?

Additionally, even if booze consumption dropped, organized crime certainly got a shot in the arm over prohibition...what makes you think the same wouldn't happen with guns?

I wonder how many lives would be saved by a comparable (30%) drop in gun ownership.. especially if that drop was comprised of the deadliest weapons or the weapons owned by the most menacing demographic or the least responsibly kept weapons?

Do you also think a 30 percent drop in computer availability would help in the reduction of teenagers commuting suicide over Facebook too?

London Met story....

The point of that story was that if the UK is a safer society because it prohibits guns, why does its police force operate like an elite special forces, theoretically the criminals here only have knives?

Well if the "criminal class" was solely responsible for gun deaths in the United States, or if illegally acquired firearms were the sole cause of gun deaths, you might have a leg to stand on.

The Washington Post looked at 500+ deaths of police officers between 2000 and 2010 and legally acquired guns were the leading cause - 107 of the 341 murder weapons they had been able to track. Another 46 were legally purchased weapons obtained from their rightful owner. Another 77 were stolen (presumably many of these were originally legally obtained as well). So you're looking at a random sample of deaths and of the ones in which the murder weapon could be traced probably the majority goes back to a legal purchase.

If you take a look at a slightly more biased source, the "Violence Policy Center" looked at 59 'high profile' shootings between 1980 and 2001 and found that in 62% of handgun shootings 71% of long gun shootings the murder weapons were legally obtained. They looked at school shootings between 1997 and 2001 and found that in eight of ten the weapons were obtained from family members or friends, and in one of the two remaining cases the kid had previously been given a pistol by his father, he used it to kill both his parents and two classmates. In 14 workplace shootings since 1986 11 were committed with legally acquired weapons.

And you're telling me that restricting the type of weapons sold, or regulating who can legally own guns, or regulating how they can be stored.. none of that is going to cut down on the number of gun deaths in the US? You can talk about fucking Al Capone all you want but Adam Lanza got his guns from his mother's closet.

The fact is that there are "the bad guys" out there just like on tv, illegally acquiring guns for the purpose committing crimes and so on. There are also thousands of idiots out there who, in a moment or two of anger or panic or just stupidity, end someone's life because it was as easy as going into their closet or night stand or glove box or because they didn't have their safety on or.. blah blah blah.

To all of the above...what do you suppose committing murder or shooting an innocent bystander or leaving your firearms for innocent children to blow away their little buddies makes one????

That's right that would make you a criminal who doesn't respect the law. Who doesn't respect the rights they are born with.

And who should be held accountable for his actions...

as an aside, those stats where it says legally obtainable or acquired guns...do they bother to point out the difference between a gun that can be legally acquired and a legally acquirable gun with its numbers filed off...a slight difference don't you think?

Yes I do agree with a right to own these semi automatic guns with high capacity magazines. I am not naive enough to believe that the two seconds it takes to switch magazines would slow the shooter down. I also realize that enforcing existing laws should take precedent over passing new ones.

Both Connecticut and New York have some of the strictest gun laws in the US. California has the most stringent.

The biggest problem with the deciding who is eligible for permits is the databases are a mess. Cross referencing mentally or criminal records is a disaster. California has decided to tackle the issue and last year took over 2,000 fire arms away from people ineligible to possess.

With the nation once again facing a horrific mass shooting and renewing conversations about gun control, the California Attorney General’s Office announced Tuesday it had taken more than 2,000 firearms away from prohibited users in the state over the last year.

Utilizing the Armed Prohibited Persons System database, agents from the California Department of Justice seized 2,033 firearms, 117,000 rounds of ammunition, and 11,072 illegal high capacity magazines from prohibited individuals between Jan. 1 to Nov. 30 of this year.

The APPS database cross-references five databases to find people who legally purchased handguns and registered assault weapons since 1996 with people who are prohibited from owning or possessing firearms. The database was completed in November 2006, and the first statewide sweep was conducted in 2007.

The people in the system prohibited from possessing guns include convicted felons, individuals with active restraining orders, and those determined to be mentally unstable.

“California has clear laws determining who can possess firearms based on their threat to public safety,” said Attorney General Kamala Harris. “Enforcing those laws is crucial because we have seen the terrible tragedies that occur when guns are in the wrong hands. This program is an important part of our law enforcement work and I thank all of the agents who work so hard every day to keep our communities safe.”

The majority of firearms were seized during two 6-week sweeps. The first statewide sweep targeted individuals prohibited because of mental health issues and the second focused on people with legally registered assault weapons who were later prohibited from owning them.

In 2011, Attorney General Harris sponsored legislation to increase funding for the Department of Justice’s APPS program through the use of existing regulatory fees collected by gun dealers. Senate Bill 819 passed in June 2011 and became law on Jan. 1.

California is the first and only state in the nation to establish an automated system for tracking handgun and assault weapon owners who might fall into a prohibited status.